ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016
Two-and-a-half-year-olds succeed at a traditional false-belief task with reduced processing demands.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Bayesian framework for the development of belief-desire reasoning: Estimating inhibitory power.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019Pooled it
- Longitudinal Relations Among Theory of Mind, Advanced Theory of Mind, and Executive Function From Ages Four to Seven.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Toddlers expect ingroup loyalty to override personal preferences when outgroups are present.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Discrimination of False Response from Object Reality in False Belief Test in Preschool Children.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- The Cognitive Architecture of Infant Attachment.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Review
- Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- The Unforgettable "Mel": Pragmatic Inferences Affect How Children Acquire and Remember Word Meanings.Developmental science · 2025Article
- The COVID-19 pandemic and social cognitive outcomes in early childhood.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- False belief understanding in deaf children: what are the difficulties?Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Empirical challenges from the comparative and developmental literature to the Shared Intentionality Theory - a review of alternative data on recursive mind reading, prosociality, imitation and cumulative culture.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Young children infer and manage what others think about them.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Effects of Family Nurture Intervention in the NICU on Theory of Mind Abilities in Children Born Very Preterm: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Connectomic Hypothesis for the Hominization of the Brain.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021Article
- Article
- Implicit Learning of True and False Belief Sequences.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Consensus Paper: Cerebellum and Social Cognition.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2020Review
- Adolescents are delayed at inferring complex social intentions in others, but not basic (false) beliefs: An eye-movement investigation.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2020Article
- Mistaken max befriends Duplo girl: No difference between a standard and an acted-out false belief task.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2020Article
- Infants Generalize Beliefs Across Individuals.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- A Brain-Inspired Model of Theory of Mind.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When tested with traditional false-belief tasks, which require answering a standard question about the likely behavior of an agent with a false belief, children perform below chance until age 4 y or later. When tested without such questions, however, children give evidence of false-belief understanding much earlier. Are traditional tasks difficult because they tap a more advanced form of false-belief understanding (fundamental-change view) or because they impose greater processing demands (processing-demands view)? Evidence that young children succeed at traditional false-belief tasks when processing demands are reduced would support the latter view. In prior research, reductions in inhibitory-control demands led to improvements in young children's performance, but often only to chance (instead of below-chance) levels. Here we examined whether further reductions in processing demands might lead to success. We speculated that: (i) young children could respond randomly in a traditional low-inhibition task because their limited information-processing resources are overwhelmed by the total concurrent processing demands in the task; and (ii) these demands include those from the response-generation process activated by the standard question. This analysis suggested that 2.5-y-old toddlers might succeed at a traditional low-inhibition task if response-generation demands were also reduced via practice trials. As predicted, toddlers performed above chance following two response-generation practice trials; toddlers failed when these trials either were rendered less effective or were used in a high-inhibition task. These results support the processing-demands view: Even toddlers succeed at a traditional false-belief task when overall processing demands are reduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.